New Investment Options

[steelboy]

1 minute ago, Well-Made said:

I am aware that we have made profit since the WS have taken over but a lot of that was down to the sale of DT. We need similar to happen more frequently so we can have the money to invest where and when we want it. I am not for one minute saying that EB's money will make that difference.

However if we can get him on board with the WS retaining 51% and a reduction of the money the WS have to put in or to buy the club back, then that would be a start.

 

He's not going to agree to the Well Society keeping 51% because he wants control over the club's finances. It's clear reading his post on P&B that he want to use the club to develop AI marketing tools and the money he puts in is basically going to be invested into doing that. There's a good chance the money the Well Society puts in will also go towards paying for that.

Also the Well Society shouldn't be paying a penny to have their shareholding reduced. That's the stupidest part of the proposal. We pay so he can take over. The fact that he is even suggesting it tells you he's not trustworthy. 

At the moment we have a fan model which gives us long term security over our vital assets and has over 7 years delivered an overall profit, financial stability, stadium improvements and an increasing player budget. To give up that to hand control to guy with no experience of business in the UK or Scotland, no experience in football and who's primary interest is Artificial Intelligence marketing tools which we are to be the guinea pig for is ABSOLUTELY FUCKING MENTAL.

This is only has a chance because of the way it's being framed. The Well Society's track record seems to have been completely discarded and there is an impossible demand being made to find new ways to finance the club. Barmack who appeared on the scene 6 months ago seems to be considered as trustworthy as our democratic fans group with 3000 members. Even the Society board can't make their own case without talking about how great a guy Barmack is which is pathetic. Ordinary working people generally like to find solutions via compromise. Rich people don't as we have seen with Barmack saying he won't move on valuation. The danger we are facing here is people deciding that the reasonable thing to do will be to go with Barmack's second offer as a compromise in some misguided sense of fairness and finding a middle ground.

 

 

 

[wellgirl]

11 hours ago, StAndrew7 said:

I don't think that's quite what people are saying.

The reason Barmack said he'll come back is the (quite vociferous in some cases) feedback and discussions he's received and had with posters there. That and the Society Board's statement on Monday. The conversation about the concerns re: the vote etc. came after he'd stated he'd come back with a revised offer/structure.

He's also said that he's concerned it'll be a pyrrhic victory if he does win currently, as it will likely split the fan base; he doesn't want to win this at all costs. Believe him or don't but that's what he's said on there.

I think there is (rightly) a concern on both P&B and here that they are both, to an extent, echo chambers. The deal as it stands is absolute dugshite; for the reasons we have all discussed over the last 5 days and the Society has laid out.

I think the majority of posters on here and P&B will have a far greater understanding of the proposal now thanks to discussions and work done by others to work through the valuations etc. 

I would argue that a fair chunk of the support who will have a vote via the WS, don't have that level of understanding and will see £2m investment and the chance of a TV deal and potentially take a punt.

Now, I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, nor do I think either board or the posters on it are superior to the other or to fans who don't post on either, but you can absolutely argue that those who post on here and P&B will be better informed than those who don't. So, being honest, I think that there is reason to be concerned that this will get voted through in its current form if it comes to that.

Also, all of what @David just said, too.

So basically we had a situation this week where a very small number of supporters told EB his deal was rotten and to shove it and he's going to revise the offer. 

If a new deal comes out of this that is more acceptable fair enough -but there's supposed to be a legally binding vote taking place in a couple of weeks. Has anyone actually thought through how that happens now that EB has said there's going to be a revised offer? Does he mean that the offer will be revised if the vote is no? 

I assume that he'll have to go back to the MFC board and the Well Society too? 

I completely agree that it's wise for EB to want the well society on side rather than opposed. 

[StAndrew7]

25 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

So basically we had a situation this week where a very small number of supporters told EB his deal was rotten and to shove it and he's going to revise the offer. 

If a new deal comes out of this that is more acceptable fair enough -but there's supposed to be a legally binding vote taking place in a couple of weeks. Has anyone actually thought through how that happens now that EB has said there's going to be a revised offer? Does he mean that the offer will be revised if the vote is no? 

I assume that he'll have to go back to the MFC board and the Well Society too? 

I completely agree that it's wise for EB to want the well society on side rather than opposed. 

No, we didn't.

We had a situation this week where a number of supporters and the elected representatives of thousands of Motherwell fans said that via a public statement, in which they recommended their members reject it and provided their reasons for doing so. That's a very different thing.

(Aside/general comment: that isn't the WS Board "telling" their members to vote no, it's them doing their jobs as board members and presenting their position to their membership with a recommendation that anyone can choose to take on board or not).

I imagine EB will go back to the Exec Board, suggest new terms and renegotiate them with them. The club statement on Monday/early next week will no doubt cover that and how it impacts on the process, vote etc.

If a new/revised deal is then tabled, I would anticipate/expect it going to both the Exec Board and WS for their consideration, yes.

I asked him if his initial offer was his he all and end all and he said he didn't know,l and that he'd not really thought about it yet. I imagine he will have over the last few days, at least. He's seemingly open to revising certain things/negotiating but by how much, only time will tell I guess.

Edit: the other thing to acknowledge here is that the WS is now down a member on the executive board, with the only one left having voted in favour of the first offer, so we can probably assume he won't truly represent the views of the WS Board in any negotiations. That's a proper minefield, right now.

[wellgirl]

7 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

No, we didn't.

We had a situation this week where a number of supporters and the elected representatives of thousands of Motherwell fans said that via a public statement, in which they recommended their members reject it and provided their reasons for doing so. That's a very different thing.

I imagine EB will go back to the Exec Board, suggest new terms and renegotiate them with them. The club statement on Monday/early next week will no doubt cover that and how it impacts on the process, vote etc.

If a new/revised deal is then tabled, I would anticipate/expect it going to both the Exec Board and WS for their consideration, yes.

I asked him if his initial offer was his he all and end all and he said he didn't know,l and that he'd not really thought about it yet. I imagine he will have over the last few days, at least. He's seemingly open to revising certain things/negotiating but by how much, only time will tell I guess.

OK. That's completely fine if the revision has happened because of the way the well society board feel and how EB feels about their statement...

But that isn't the way that some posters on pie and bov are putting it across. There's been more than one post that indicated that the deal was going to be torched because of the discussion that took place on the forums earlier in the week - hence me asking. I have seen some of the chat but there is an awful lot to wade through. Thanks for the clarification. 

[StAndrew7]

9 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

OK. That's completely fine if the revision has happened because of the way the well society board feel and how EB feels about their statement...

But that isn't the way that some posters on pie and bov are putting it across. There's been more than one post that indicated that the deal was going to be torched because of the discussion that took place on the forums earlier in the week - hence me asking. I have seen some of the chat but there is an awful lot to wade through. Thanks for the clarification. 

As with everything posted on a forum, a big pinch of salt is required to be taken when reading threads etc. Individual posters will clearly want to think they've played a part in it (and given the detailed feedback and discussions that have been had, I would suggest some have) but it's absolutely not just all about them.

[wellgirl]

24 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:

As with everything posted on a forum, a big pinch of salt is required to be taken when reading threads etc. Individual posters will clearly want to think they've played a part in it (and given the detailed feedback and discussions that have been had, I would suggest some have) but it's absolutely not just all about them.

Yeah you're right. Just a shame that my 2.60 lottery win last night didn't have several more zeros on the end or I could have put in a rival bid and got my newly appointed crack team of financial specialists on the case. 

(I rarely do the lottery but when I do I always win two quid). 

[Stuwell2]

On 6/14/2024 at 12:53 AM, StAndrew7 said:

It's something around a single entity owning 75% and legal issues around that with the structure of the Well Society, or something along those lines. Bit of a murky legal area I believe but I'm no expert.

Did the society not sell a % of shares to private individuals around that time?

Was this possibly part of the reason for the sale?
I’m sure it was said at the time that it was to raise funds/some people were willing to put money into the club but not through the society so this was a way of getting money in without seriously diluting the WS shareholding’s. 

Re club valuation could we not work out the valuation of the club at that time if we know the % sold and the amount raised? This could help inform us if the valuation’s are drastically different or similar.  

[David]

3 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

Whilst I agree with much of what you say, in this post, David, I think this statement is somewhat arrogant and patronising. I'm old enough and ugly enough to have been there and done this myself, to my regret. You might disagree with fellow Well fans as I sometimes do, but please don't denigrate them. Some fans may have opposite, but perfectly legitimate and sincerely held, views to you.

What I would ask is for anyone who supports the Barmack deal to explain their thinking. Surely that isn't too much to ask? I’ve seen plenty of detailed explanations on why the deal isn’t favourable. Where’s the counter-argument? Perhaps I'm missing something, and there’s incredible value in this deal that justifies giving up the fan ownership we’ve worked so hard to achieve.

We had three Well Society board members vote in favour of the deal. Where are they? Why aren't they explaining why they voted that way? Surely if they believe it's the way forward, they'll tell us why? 

I’m not denigrating anyone; I’m simply being honest. If it appeared that way, then I can only apologise. But the future of our club is at stake here, and what I won’t apologise for is asking difficult questions or making unpopular statements. I genuinely want someone who intends to vote in favour of or is considering voting in favour of, this deal to explain their views. I want to understand why they believe it represents value and is worth nullifying almost half a million pounds of contributions from people who, for the most part, cannot afford to lose that money. I deeply value and respect the hard-earned contributions of our fans, and I believe they deserve a thorough explanation.

I also believe it’s important to point out that Barmack may see the club as being run by people he can easily sway. 

People saying, “Well, at least he’s taking time out of his busy schedule to speak to us online,” need to understand that he’s doing this because he wants to facilitate a deal where he acquires a top-flight football club and all that it offers for very little financial input.

5 hours ago, wellgirl said:

As for the board not being business savvy - there are two people on the board who run their own business. There's someone who works in financial services. One of the board members who was voted onto the board last summer ran and made statements that their business experience was what they would be bringing to the board. 

Theyve also voted to reject apart from Feely and Dickie.

I wasn't talking about the Society board. I was referring to the wider membership. I genuinely believe he is actually shocked by the response he has received online and the number of educated, savvy replies his nonsense has attracted.

He revealed his plan when he said he was still confident the deal would go through because he only needs 75% to vote in favour, and he doesn't believe that a majority of Society members are on these forums and thus aren't reading the responses and arguments against his deal.

He is relying on articles and headlines like this to push the deal through. Phrases like "ex-Netflix boss" and "Hollywood business tycoon" make him sound like a big deal.

I mean, surely a "business tycoon" and "ex-Netflix boss" knows what's best, right? I genuinely believe he assumed that we mere mortals would be grateful that he was coming in to help save our supposedly troubled club.

[cambo97]

2 hours ago, StAndrew7 said:

No, we didn't.

We had a situation this week where a number of supporters and the elected representatives of thousands of Motherwell fans said that via a public statement, in which they recommended their members reject it and provided their reasons for doing so. That's a very different thing.

Technically it was only the personal opinion of the representatives as they didn't/don't know the opinions of the  "thousands of Motherwell fans " at that time. Although I suspect the board split is similar to the overall split of the thousands of Motherwell fans

[StAndrew7]

9 minutes ago, cambo97 said:

Technically it was only the personal opinion of the representatives as they didn't/don't know the opinions of the  "thousands of Motherwell fans " at that time. Although I suspect the board split is similar to the overall split of the thousands of Motherwell fans

That's essentially what I said, or was trying to say. They were giving their opinion based on their elected status, the Society membership voted for them to be their representatives. The membership then gave them their mandate; consider anything that involves investment in the club, including giving up the Society's majority share. The board said quite clearly thereafter that they would give their opinion on any offer and then put it to the vote.

They are always open to hearing the views of their membership and I wouldn't be surprised if they'd been canvassing members they know and also receiving significant volumes of feedback directly. I believe the interview with Speedie and Derek said they'd be looking to host Society meetings to discuss things.

[wellgirl]

56 minutes ago, David said:

What I would ask is for anyone who supports the Barmack deal to explain their thinking. Surely that isn't too much to ask? I’ve seen plenty of detailed explanations on why the deal isn’t favourable. Where’s the counter-argument? Perhaps I'm missing something, and there’s incredible value in this deal that justifies giving up the fan ownership we’ve worked so hard to achieve.

We had three Well Society board members vote in favour of the deal. Where are they? Why aren't they explaining why they voted that way? Surely if they believe it's the way forward, they'll tell us why? 

I’m not denigrating anyone; I’m simply being honest. If it appeared that way, then I can only apologise. But the future of our club is at stake here, and what I won’t apologise for is asking difficult questions or making unpopular statements. I genuinely want someone who intends to vote in favour of or is considering voting in favour of, this deal to explain their views. I want to understand why they believe it represents value and is worth nullifying almost half a million pounds of contributions from people who, for the most part, cannot afford to lose that money. I deeply value and respect the hard-earned contributions of our fans, and I believe they deserve a thorough explanation.

I also believe it’s important to point out that Barmack may see the club as being run by people he can easily sway. 

People saying, “Well, at least he’s taking time out of his busy schedule to speak to us online,” need to understand that he’s doing this because he wants to facilitate a deal where he acquires a top-flight football club and all that it offers for very little financial input.

I wasn't talking about the Society board. I was referring to the wider membership. I genuinely believe he is actually shocked by the response he has received online and the number of educated, savvy replies his nonsense has attracted.

He revealed his plan when he said he was still confident the deal would go through because he only needs 75% to vote in favour, and he doesn't believe that a majority of Society members are on these forums and thus aren't reading the responses and arguments against his deal.

He is relying on articles and headlines like this to push the deal through. Phrases like "ex-Netflix boss" and "Hollywood business tycoon" make him sound like a big deal.

I mean, surely a "business tycoon" and "ex-Netflix boss" knows what's best, right? I genuinely believe he assumed that we mere mortals would be grateful that he was coming in to help save our supposedly troubled club.

I've actually not read most of his responses on there - because when he went on the other day he was being name called a bit. Certainly he was being blamed for the valuation of the club (and on twitter as well) when it wasn't him that set the value..

If people are undecided about this deal they can email the club or the society or both. Fans have been in touch with the club already. And if fans want to make their decisions based on posts on forums where they've been given more information - that's fine.

Would I post on here if I were in favour - no. Other people might though and as I said on another post I saw fans on Facebook last week saying they want this deal done. 

 There will always be people who will have no strong feelings either way, even if we think they should and there will be fans who probably won't vote at all. There were fans who didn't vote in the first vote. Apathy is what sets in sometimes in any voting situation.

I completely agree that the board members who voted yes to this should explain their reasons. 

[David]

3 hours ago, StAndrew7 said:

I imagine EB will go back to the Exec Board, suggest new terms and renegotiate them with them. The club statement on Monday/early next week will no doubt cover that and how it impacts on the process, vote etc.

We currently have an executive board with a seat meant to be held by a Well Society board member, which is now occupied by someone who has just resigned from the Society Board, citing his position as "untenable." Additionally, another seat is held by an individual who actively disregarded the mandate given to him by the Society, choosing to vote according to his personal views instead.

In my opinion, the current structure at the club needs a complete overhaul before any agreements are made with investors.

Also, we have a Chairman who is on the verge of leaving. This situation makes absolutely no sense.

The timing of this proposal is completely off. We need to get our house in order before inviting guests in for a cup of tea and considering if they might want to buy the place.

 

[StAndrew7]

49 minutes ago, David said:

We currently have an executive board with a seat meant to be held by a Well Society board member, which is now occupied by someone who has just resigned from the Society Board, citing his position as "untenable." Additionally, another seat is held by an individual who actively disregarded the mandate given to him by the Society, choosing to vote according to his personal views instead.

In my opinion, the current structure at the club needs a complete overhaul before any agreements are made with investors.

Also, we have a Chairman who is on the verge of leaving. This situation makes absolutely no sense.

The timing of this proposal is completely off. We need to get our house in order before inviting guests in for a cup of tea and considering if they might want to buy the place.

 

Preach!

[wellgirl]

1 hour ago, David said:

We currently have an executive board with a seat meant to be held by a Well Society board member, which is now occupied by someone who has just resigned from the Society Board, citing his position as "untenable." Additionally, another seat is held by an individual who actively disregarded the mandate given to him by the Society, choosing to vote according to his personal views instead.

In my opinion, the current structure at the club needs a complete overhaul before any agreements are made with investors.

Also, we have a Chairman who is on the verge of leaving. This situation makes absolutely no sense.

The timing of this proposal is completely off. We need to get our house in order before inviting guests in for a cup of tea and considering if they might want to buy the place.

 

It's a bit late for that given that there's been negotiations already with an outside investor. There surely should have been protocols in place so that the two members on the well society board who were also on the MFC board couldn't vote against the majority wishes. 

McMahon was also leaving when the video looking for outside investment went out as far as I know. 

I'd be interested to know if the Well Society backed the initial call for outside investment and tbh I don't think anyone is giving fans answers just now - answers that we clearly deserve. 

[David]

12 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

It's a bit late for that given that there's been negotiations already with an outside investor.

Not at all. These circumstances have arisen due to negotiations with the investor. This situation has highlighted a clear governance issue at the club.

13 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

There surely should have been protocols in place so that the two members on the well society board who were also on the MFC board couldn't vote against the majority wishes. 

You could be right. However, considering that Society board members are expected to support and champion fan ownership, it could theoretically be expected that they would normally look to kick such a derisory offer into touch, as the majority of the Society board voted to do. At the very least, they should respect the Society and its members enough to take the decision of the Society board to the executive board level.

It’s also possible that they didn’t do that for the following reasons:

I’ve read that while Caldwell and Lindsay have been added to the executive board, they haven’t been given voting rights yet. If that’s true, then the voting members of the executive board are McMahon, Dickie, and Feely.

This means that if Dickie and Feely had voted according to the Society board’s decision, McMahon would have been the only one voting in favour of the proposal, resulting in it being rejected by both the executive and Society boards.

However, by Dickie and Feely voting based on their personal opinions rather than the Society board’s decision, the narrative changes completely. Instead of both boards rejecting the proposal, it appears that the executive board unanimously accepted it, while the Society board voted to reject it.

Even with Caldwell and Lindsay having voting rights, the vote would have gone in favour by 3 votes to 2, which is much closer than a "unanimous" verdict, completely changing the optics of the situation.

At best, they treated their fellow Well Society board members with utter contempt. At worst, they were acting for nefarious reasons, as outlined above.

20 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I'd be interested to know if the Well Society backed the initial call for outside investment and tbh I don't think anyone is giving fans answers just now - answers that we clearly deserve. 

What questions are you looking for answers to?

[santheman]

3 hours ago, David said:

We currently have an executive board with a seat meant to be held by a Well Society board member, which is now occupied by someone who has just resigned from the Society Board, citing his position as "untenable." Additionally, another seat is held by an individual who actively disregarded the mandate given to him by the Society, choosing to vote according to his personal views instead.

In my opinion, the current structure at the club needs a complete overhaul before any agreements are made with investors.

Also, we have a Chairman who is on the verge of leaving. This situation makes absolutely no sense.

The timing of this proposal is completely off. We need to get our house in order before inviting guests in for a cup of tea and considering if they might want to buy the place.

 

We've also got a new CEO on the executive board who I imagine will do what his new bosses tell him rather than what he thinks himself.

I say that assuming he has voting rights.

[steelboy]

It's just more of the usual throwing accusations at the Society while trying to derail any talk about Barmack's game.

She's been playing a stupid game since January DM'ing most of the regular posters on the board and posting constant sob stories about injuries, hospital stays and being skint. Very strange behaviour from a new poster who appeared right at the time of the bid.

[wellgirl]

17 minutes ago, steelboy said:

It's just more of the usual throwing accusations at the Society while trying to derail any talk about Barmack's game.

She's been playing a stupid game since January DM'ing most of the regular posters on the board and posting constant sob stories about injuries, hospital stays and being skint. Very strange behaviour from a new poster who appeared right at the time of the bid.

Im not a new poster. I've had this account on here for over  15 years. And with respect. Anything I've spoken to people about in private on here has nothing to do with you. I didn't just appear at the time of the bid. I'll happily drop out of this thread though. 

[steelboy]

22 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Im not a new poster. I've had this account on here for over  15 years. And with respect. Anything I've spoken to people about in private on here has nothing to do with you. I didn't just appear at the time of the bid. I'll happily drop out of this thread though. 

Aye you registered on the first day the site was created then started posting every day 15 years later as soon as Barmack appeared on the scene. 

Totally normal account.

[David]

2 hours ago, steelboy said:

It's just more of the usual throwing accusations at the Society while trying to derail any talk about Barmack's game.

She's been playing a stupid game since January DM'ing most of the regular posters on the board and posting constant sob stories about injuries, hospital stays and being skint. Very strange behaviour from a new poster who appeared right at the time of the bid.

Let’s keep things civil; there’s no need for personal attacks. Your contributions to this discussion have mostly been very insightful.

Let’s maintain that standard.

[cambo97]

10 hours ago, David said:

Not at all. These circumstances have arisen due to negotiations with the investor. This situation has highlighted a clear governance issue at the club.

You could be right. However, considering that Society board members are expected to support and champion fan ownership, it could theoretically be expected that they would normally look to kick such a derisory offer into touch, as the majority of the Society board voted to do. At the very least, they should respect the Society and its members enough to take the decision of the Society board to the executive board level.

It’s also possible that they didn’t do that for the following reasons:

I’ve read that while Caldwell and Lindsay have been added to the executive board, they haven’t been given voting rights yet. If that’s true, then the voting members of the executive board are McMahon, Dickie, and Feely.

This means that if Dickie and Feely had voted according to the Society board’s decision, McMahon would have been the only one voting in favour of the proposal, resulting in it being rejected by both the executive and Society boards.

However, by Dickie and Feely voting based on their personal opinions rather than the Society board’s decision, the narrative changes completely. Instead of both boards rejecting the proposal, it appears that the executive board unanimously accepted it, while the Society board voted to reject it.

Even with Caldwell and Lindsay having voting rights, the vote would have gone in favour by 3 votes to 2, which is much closer than a "unanimous" verdict, completely changing the optics of the situation.

At best, they treated their fellow Well Society board members with utter contempt. At worst, they were acting for nefarious reasons, as outlined above.

What questions are you looking for answers to?

What was the society board's decision at the time of executive board meeting, all I've read suggests that the society board vote was after the executive vote; therefore at that time, as StAndrew7 (I think, apologies if it wasn't) pointed out, it could be reasonably stated that they did enact this wishes of the membership who said they would consider an offer reducing the WS stake. And they now have that opportunity to reject or accept.

[steelboy]

2 hours ago, cambo97 said:

What was the society board's decision at the time of executive board meeting, all I've read suggests that the society board vote was after the executive vote; therefore at that time, as StAndrew7 (I think, apologies if it wasn't) pointed out, it could be reasonably stated that they did enact this wishes of the membership who said they would consider an offer reducing the WS stake. And they now have that opportunity to reject or accept.

Just because the members voted for a vague proposal about investment that would give up fan ownership doesn't mean the board should be putting forward a ridiculous offer where we are paying £1.8 million to give our shareholding away and getting nothing in return. 

The deal is the equivalent of having a £160,000 house and someone comes to your door and says they'll take a half share in the house for free but don't worry they'll put in 40 grand to build an extension. Oh aye and you need to put 35 grand towards that as well. And they are in total control of how the money is spent. It sounds like a wind up but this is the offer the club board are recommending. 

[steelboy]

I've just reread the proposal and noticed this. Basically the 46% shareholding offer to the Well Society is only a potential maximum outcome and it could actually go as low as 22% if this offer to private shareholders is fully taken up.

We are being absolutely fucking scammed. McMahon and Dickie are undervaluing the club so they can buy up more shares dirt cheap.

@David Get this on P&B.

4 Other shareholders will have the right to subscribe for their pro rata amount each year eg if a shareholder owns 1% at present, they will be entitled to subscribe for 1% of the new shares issued. If they do that, it will reduce the amounts the WS need to subscribe and the number of shares they receive on that share issue.

 

[steelboy]

@StAndrew7

Since you are a private shareholder can you ask the club for the price per share in the proposed annual share subscription for (i) Erik Barmack (ii) private shareholders (iii) the Well Society.

Cheers 

The arithmetic on this suggests that private shareholders will actually have the option to increase their shareholding and that the Well Society could go even lower than 22%.

[StAndrew7]

11 minutes ago, steelboy said:

@StAndrew7

Since you are a private shareholder can you ask the club for the price per share in the proposed annual share subscription for (i) Erik Barmack (ii) private shareholders (iii) the Well Society.

Cheers 

The arithmetic on this suggests that private shareholders will actually have the option to increase their shareholding and that the Well Society could go even lower than 22%.

Yeah, I've been drafting an email for a while and this is in there, sending it shortly.